list_api_usage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' verb aligns with that. The description adds value by listing specific returned metrics (active scout counts, rate limits, activity metrics), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, output schema exists, read-only annotation provided), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits guidance on how the 'period' parameter affects results and does not explain the output schema structure. The presence of an output schema partially compensates.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not mention the optional 'period' parameter at all, despite the schema having 0% description coverage. The agent must infer its purpose solely from the schema's enum values, which is insufficient for optimal invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'API usage statistics'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_scouts' which list individual scouts, not aggregate usage. The inclusion of example data points (active scout counts, rate limits) adds specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving API usage statistics, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'list_scouts' or 'list_browsing_tasks'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.